Tuesday, September 04, 2007


So some really great response to the last post... thanks for reading and responding! I wanted to bring the discussion to a the pointed issue that I am taking with Ron Paul. If I knew more about other candidates (I regretfully acknowledge that I am not very aware of the current candidates...the fact that lobbying for votes has begun so far from the actual voting day is another discussion.) I would probably have something foolish to say there as well. But I write about Ron Paul, because he seems to have gained great favor in the eyes of some of my best friends (...and for a great deal of "legalize it" folk that would probably be friendly in a "lets smoke away our concerns" way.)
I love Ron Paul's call for constitutionalism, smaller government, financial integrity etc. The issue that I take (as Jay got right too in his post) is one of intervention vs. non-intervention. It is my understanding that Ron Paul sees terrorism against the West and the United States as a retrobution to years of intervention in Mid East Politics. This has been done though in many ways, whether selling arms, funding leaders, using military or economic force to bring about change...etc. If we had just kept our noses out of the Mid East...no 911, no terrorism. I may be wrong on these points, but a couple of You Tube interviews seem to show that Ron Paul takes this issue pretty keenly, and feels that it is not only a good idealogy, but is constitutional.
My problem is this, there would not be a constitution if it were not for France intervening in our battle against the British. It could even be argued that key battles in the revolutionary war could not have been one without the intervention of Native American Tribes. World War II could have turned out much worse (if that is possible...and it is) had Britan and the United States not interviened...I may not be able to say this in a sound logical arguement, but it appears that when people care about something, and that thing is in trouble, or hurting...the loving "What would Jesus Do" attitude is to interviene at times. Not Always, naturally, to suggest that we should interviene at all times is foolish and impossible...but we elect leaders so that they can make the difficult decisions. And some one who decides, without knowledge of the future, that we should never intervene seems to be someone who takes a huge piece of the puzzle out before knowing the picture being put together. Intervention is a huge step in reconciliation, and I believe that sometimes that intervention takes the form of military conflict.
This is the part where people panic. "Who Would Jesus Bomb" is in fact a fair question, but if you study the scripture you realize that in fact Jesus second return is not as a child and a servant, but as a judge, on a horse with a sword. In fact, Christianity is riddled with contridiction in this realm...David will not kill his enemy Saul, but he kills hundreds of Philistines for a wedding gift; Jesus does not even condemn his murderers, but he will judge the world etc. The point that I am trying to make, and the one that I seem to find in scipture, is that there are not the black and white quick answers to everything...Jesus never said, "I will never..." or "I always..." he tells a rich man to give all his money to the poor, and tells a story about how the guy who didn't double his money was a fool. Different people need different things, and different times call for different measures. That is why I believe humility, and submission to one who knows the whole picture (God in this case) is the only way to make wise decisions, grow, and ultimately live. Sometimes people need grace and acceptance, and other times they need a swift kick...only God knows what works.
(Back on track) I would like to say that I am not anti-Ron Paul, and as Dave mentioned...I may turn yet! But this will be a big hurdle for me. I do believe that there is evil in th world...and that people can be minding their own business and get attacked by terrorists, or invaded, or left peacefully. My scare is that while we should always look to our own faults first, we should not think that others are free from wrong, and even great evil. Saddam was evil, Hitler was evil, Charles Manson was/is evil, Pol Pot was evil, Chowchesque was evil, Stalin was evil, Michael J. Fox is evil I will explain sometime : ), Wesley Allan Dodd was evil, (Ron Paul is certainly not evil). If we lose, or purposely forsake for the love of an ideal, the ability to make judgements and act on them, we lose ALOT. OF COURSE this is dangerous, OF COURSE wrong judgements happen all the time, OF COURSE minor wrongs are "overly" corrected, OF COURSE more often then not there are peaceful ways of intervention...but to stop thinking and acting on what we think is right is to stop learning, growing and being in relationship with ourselves and the world.
Enough for now, thanks for your thoughts
PS. Dave - I didn't know anyone at all read my blog...I think there is like six people total who have looked at it...so I don't think that I m leading the world astray...and besides your intervention has helped to sharpen and clarify and bring about the other perspective!
PSS. Spwl cheque wusn wirkig sew ther mite bee mistkes


Jenny said...

Chris- you might want to check your spelling. I couldn't understand a word you wrote.

simonsenfamily said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
simonsenfamily said...

What I really want to know is about Michael J. Fox! Serious, what's the scoop?

Love the comic! Great choice.

Rachel said...

Chris - Just came across your blog via Kristen & Kyle's. I totally follow your thought process and agree with it. I look forward to reading more posts. - Rachel

Rachel said...

P.S. Zack and I started an ALPHA course at our church last night and we thought of you, knowing you lead it at Bethany.